about half of that money, $138 million, came from groups not required to identify their donors. it worked. independent expenditures donated in this last election were important to the results in seats that changed hands. democrats versus republicans, and and a group spent on an average of $764,000 on the winner, those supporting a loser only supported $273,000. this will afford to engage you into the topic of what this means and what follows the money. with that, is my great pleasure to introduce to you a man that we already know is charlie cook, the publisher of the cook political report. he writes regularly for the national journal magazine. he also has a regular column for the washington quarterly and as a political analyst for nbc news

and is quoted widely in many media organizations. with that, let me turn it over to charlie. [no [applause] >> thank you, i appreciate your flexibility here. this is a wild day for me. when bob edgar and mary boyle asked me to do this, i was delighted. i do not consider myself a hard core reformer but i do see somebody -- i am someone who sees the system as horrifically flawed. i don't have solutions, but i thank the dialogue and discussion is important. i will not give my normal spiel. some of the lessons that we have learned and learned again is that money is hugely important but it is not totally determinative.

in fact, there are times when there is a lot of diminishing returns or where the public says mas.' with meg wittman spending in california, it seemed to be working and suddenly people said no. they kind of rebelled against it a little bit. there may have been a little bit of that with connecticut with linda mcmahon. it did not happen everywhere with up rick scott winning the governorship of of florida. money is hugely important but there seems to be some limits as to what it does. i confess this whole area of unlimited/undisclosed money is discomfiting for me because frankly, i was not comfortable when we saw a lot of that on the democratic side in 2006 and 2008

and i am not comfortable with it on the republican side in 2010. it is important for everybody to be consistent with that. i don't know what the solutions are. i really don't. in the absence of amending the constitution, i don't know where we go. i think we could all seven that there is a problem and that because of the importance of money has gotten to the point where i think it is really creating -- and i am not so much from the selling outside as much as i think it is harder and harder for elected officials to maintain any kind of connection with voters with average voters when they are chasing money so hard current there is just not the time. i sat in on some focus groups and were watching a video of focus groups a few months ago

with wal-mart moms. average and working-class women with children under 18 years of age who had been shocked at wal- mart and the last -- who had shot at wal-mart and lest you must bring the level of abandonment they have felt from both parties in washington was really telling. one woman was a school teacher in denver and she was asked -- the focus groups were done by wal-mart but they had a democratic and republican pollster overseeing these focus groups. one of the questions they asked was," if elected officials in washington understood your lives, what would they do differently?" this one woman, a schoolteacher in denver said," i cannot imagine elected officials in washington understand my life." another one in the st. louis focus group, another woman said,

"too bad this is not like on tv that shows undercover boss, where elected officials could come and live with us for a day or two and see what our lives are like." this was not a conversation about campaign money or anything. a's sort of reinforced message to me about how abandoned and isolated so many americans feel. casest think in most these elected officials, these politicians are selling out so much as i don't think they have time to talk to people in informal settings. you remember back in 1976 or it probably would have been 1975 when jimmy carter was running for president and he would sleep on the self as of zero families in homes, living room sofa in

family rooms to save money but also to establish a connection and how quaint that sounds today when you see these horrific figures of how much of a typical member of congress have to raise every single day of their two-years of house term or six years of senate term. i don't have solutions, but at least i am encouraged that the biggest money does not always win but the biggest money does win more often than not. there does seem to be limits for voters on how much or how much of a disparity they are willing to put up with before they sort of rebel. i think we did see that. this was obviously a huge election. i tell people that -- wave

elections are typically ragged. they are not uniform.. some parts of the country were worse than others and some demographic groups or worse than others. i would describe using the starbucks vernacular that the house was a vente election, that is the 20 an ounce size. the other candidates were grande. they did not get as much as they wanted but in the house where it will end up being 65 seats or so, absolutely enormous biggest win in any election since 1948, the biggest midterm election win for a party since 1938. obviously, the economy played a huge role par there was a lot me going on than just a horrible economy. what i would look at is

independent voters and these are the voters that are the most disconnected from politics. i would look at what is happening in the last three elections. in 2006, the independent voters voted by an 18 point margin in favor of democrats for congress. 18 points in 2006. into asn eighth, they voted by an eight point margin for democrats. this election, they voted by an 18 point margin in favor of republicans, 56% for republicans, 38% for democrats. when you're talking about a 36 point swing from one midterm election to another, or a 26 point swing from just from one election to another, that is absolutely enormous. when you look at some of the other things -- what we are

looking at is a house of representatives that sort of is a lot more aligned. there will be a lot less fish out of water in this next congress than there have been v. there will be only maybe a dozen democrats sitting in districts that john mccain won and about 62 republicans sitting in districts that barack obama 1. keep in mind that john mccain was not the high water mark for the modern republican party. there was a lot going on but where democrats -- this was not about turnout so much. democrats turned out a little bit less than before and republicans turned out a little bit more. it was not about defection. democratic voters voted by 93-7 in favor of democratic candidates. i'm sorry, i got that wrong. 92-7 and republican voters voted 95-4 in favor of republican candidates. it was the independent swing

that made the big difference and they are the ones that are most disconnected to the political process, putting the greatest emphasis on political reform of all kinds. i have a lot more hopes for the concept of re-districting then campaign finance reform. the great thing about making changes tenures out is that it does not apply to most of the current people. it is easier to convince elected official to do the right thing if it is not going to apply to them or if it will not apply to them anytime soon. over the next two or three years, getting people to focus on getting states and voters in the media more focused re- districting reform and do it for a time from looking at the 2020 -- the 2021 re-districting process, that probably has --

would have accomplished more than almost anything else we could do right now why don't we stop and open it up? do you want to field the questions and what ever i can help talk about, i would be happy to do. thank you very much. >> thank you, charlie [applause] i will open up for questions and since we don't have microphones in the audience, i will repeat the questions. please be brief and who would like to start? >> [inaudible] if you talk about the public opinion [inaudible] about reform. do voters care about the money? what abouts independence? >> let me repeat the question. the question was -- what was the view of independent voters about reform? there has been back and forth about what they feel about it.

what do you feel about it? >> i would argue that they are the only ones that really care about reform. democratic voters are in favor of reform and republican and republican-oriented groups. republican reformers are interested in reforming democratic and a democratic- allied groups. nobody wants to do anything to cut in on their own side. it is independents, the people that don't have partisan roots, they are the ones that are most disaffected from the political process. they are the most cynical. they are the ones that are more open to ideas of reform of honest reform as opposed to trying to take advantage of the other side under the guise of reform, which is what partisans on the republican and democrat side often do.

i think there is a constituency for that. part of what is coming out or what will come out of this election or the last three elections is, because there are so few liberal moderate republicans left in congress and because there will be so few conservative moderate democrats left in congress, the american people are sort of an ideological shape of a bell curve, slightly more right to that left, center-left, most americans are between the 30 yard line. congress would column bimodal, it is like a camel with two pumps. humps. the incredibly ideological and increasingly ideological nature of republican party and the democratic party is such that i think the feeling of

estrangement, that people in the middle have, it is enormous and it will be growing after this election, even the worst and it was before. >> i have two questions. [inaudible] [inaudible]

>> i am not a lawyer and that is not my field. to my knowledge, i have never seen a felony committed in my presence that i had firsthand knowledge of. i think there is no chance of any reform measure is being done during the lame duck session. that is not really what lame- duck sessions are for. yes, i cannot particular respond to that. i think this system is separate up and is not necessarily follow the as behavior. -- felonious behavior. >> i am the national chair of the committee to draft a michael bloomberg. [inaudible] bought could you talk to that?

can you speak to those wal-mart mothers? >> i think the american people have long been open to the idea of a third party. i think they are increasingly would like to see that happen. i think they fundamentally don't trust and have good reason not to trust in the party. i think they are incredibly open to it. the problem is that it is rare that you find independent or third-party candidates that are not sort of fringe-y characters that cannot get broadbased support. most of them are not deserving a broadbased support for it 1996, if colin powell had run, that would have been an interesting test case. he was obviously a major figure, someone who could draw a broad base support and someone who would be worthy of a great deal

of support. excuse me? >> [inaudible] >> let me go straight to bloomberg. [laughter] get into -- io think there is a a thin line between independent/flakey. independent is a good thing but i don't think anybody has referred to michael bloomberg as flakey. you could like him or dislike converted i spent an hour with a one time and he is one of the most impressive people i have ever met in my life. hearing him talk about what he is doing in new york city is amazing. the fact is, i cannot come up with a single other name of someone who could be a credible formidable third-party independent candidate in 2012.

michael bloomberg, yes or no. if there is another name, let me know. i cannot think of one. i think with the economy, we will be looking at economic growth of probably somewhere between 2% and 3% through 2012, unemployment in the 8.5% range through 2012. the economic climate will be a very, very difficult one for president obama seeking reelection i think the honeymoon period for the afghan service will run out early next year. there's a possibility of problems on his left flank with the afghan war. i think he will be in a weakened condition and lord knows what republicans will come up with. if i was president obama, i would be on my knees every night praying for the economy to

turn around, for the afghans are store, and for sarah palin to get the republican nomination variant [laughter] >> over here. >> [inaudible] >> to be honest, i have not look much at the ballot initiatives on environment. i cannot speak to that. the thing is, i think timing in politics is critically important. there is a good time when people are open to debate and dialogue and new ideas on things like climate change and there are unfortunate times.

i think that cache and trade played a significant role in what happened in this election very when i go back and look at where the wheels started wobbling on the democratic cart, it was before the focus shifted to health care and it was soon after the kaplans' trade voted -- the captain trade votes. -- the cap and trade vote. that was the first sign that things were going wrong and that was preceding the real focus on health care. i think last year the american people -- the american people who would be open to a conversation about health care reform. i think there would be open to discussion on climate change. when you have unemployment that was at that point heading up towards 10%, they wanted a laser beam-like focus but not on

health care reform and certainly not on cap and trade. i think it was a matter of there is a time and place to focus on things but when unemployment is skyrocketing, that was not the time. i would say that cap and trade was one of five or six contributing factors to that election. particularly in the midwest heartland and the south. -- in this out for it in terms of the ballot initiatives, i cannot address that. at another time, that would have been a conversation that people would have welcomed. it is not that they are close to the idea of addressing the problem of climate change. it is a matter of don't do it in

the face of a recession. >> we have time for a couple more questions. >> [inaudible] we heard comments from david axelrod [inaudible] >> the question was -- do you see in the 2012 time from a large surge in these sorts of independent groups on the democratic side as well? >> i don't think this is the beginning. we have seen in the last decade -- i don't know that there is fundamentally a difference between george soros and peter lewis on the left or the coke

brothers on the right. there is a sense in this country that money spent on behalf of the people i like is an investment in democracy. money spent against people i like is special interest and corruption. well, that is sort of a friend me that i don't particularly care for. to me, democrats exploited bill law and the left exploitable lot to its fullest extent in 2004 and 2006 and 2008 and republicans did this time. that is like an arms race. each side is elevating ed and pushing the limits. . this was a cycle where it was republicans that raised the bar of how far to go over democrats.

before that, republicans were apoplectic when democrats are doing and now it is the reverse. it will keep getting worse. at what point does the system so strained? yes, is the short answer. >> [inaudible] obama's fund-raising was triggered by smaller individuals. >> there was a helluva lot of big money. go up to wall street and look around at how many people wrote big chap stick -- checks to the democratic party. the idea that this was fueled primarily by small donors, no. i think that is delusional, i really do. going into narrow

the focus down on just what went into which campaign. no, i don't buy that at all. apparatus has been funded by large donations. and allied groups. that for a second. thank you all very much [applause] >> we now have a great pleasure of having an opportunity to have a conversation with a distinguished panel of the folks with real experience in campaign finance issues. i will introduce them briefly. , three of them. alas them for opening remarks and will open up to questions.

to my immediate left is k leftrumholz -- is sheila krumholz. to her left and your center is the butler derrick. he is a lawyer. he is a former u.s. congressman serving 20 years in the south carolina house before that and he is a member of the national governing board of common cause. to his left is orin pearson, he led the common cause campaign reform efforts and he has had

experience as the executive director of the main service and leadership fund which were done good government issues in maine. let me turn it over to our distinguished panel and sheila, we will start with you. [applause] >> good morning, everyone. let me just echo some of the same kind -- comments that charlie made. money was certainly a big story in 2010 but it certainly it wasn't a panacea for an inadequate message or candidate. outsize spending is not new. it was just more free-flowing after the citizens united decision earlier this year. more of it was hit in this time around. self-funding is not a guarantee of success and it is more likely that those kind of candidates will lose because they are relying too heavily on their

money and not enough on their candidate's skills. once again, we saw just -- not just record fund-raising but excess it. where will this end and what will this mean for democracy? that is a critical question to be answered. let me start by saying that crp has been predicting that these elections would cost $3.7 billion throughout this year and based on the number we are seeing now in total receipts which are more indicative of what will be spent ultimately throughout the election and on expenditures, we appear to be at least on target to meet that $3.7 billion and likely exceed that approaching $4 billion. there is little doubt that spending is actually much higher than what is included in the reported expenditures. when you look -- if we could look at the un reported expenditures by outages groups, some of this is for issue

advocacy conducted by 501c organizations and some are determined as operational costs but certainly additional large sums were directed at influencing politics. although the sources -- only the sources of this money will never be disclosed and the expenditures will never be reported. for instance, american crossroads and crossroads gps report that they will have raised $71 million in these elections. they have only disclose expenditures for half that amount. crossroads gps funding for political ads remain entirely anonymous. that and on and it was critical for their ability to raise that $71 million as i have acknowledged themselves. so far, $3.3 billion has been raised and more than $3 billion

has been spent based on initial reports. . we will not know what the final tally is and where the money is coming from for the last several weeks before the election until early december. outside groups, a great deal of focus has been justifiably placed on these outside groups. they have grabbed the spotlight and drives considerable fear and loathing this cycle. all told, this spending amounts to $437 million or only 30% of the total of $4 billion in predicted outside spending. all spending is not created equal. this is less valuable to the comment -- candidates this outside spending, is not money in their pockets. it is not monday they controlled. it is far more negative and less accountable and often misleading and even containing outright lies. people want to know who put up all this money. at a minimum, they have a right to know. arguably, they have an obligation to know, to guard the

democratic process ensuring that politics is being decided on merit and not on monday. a huge chunk of this was bankrolled by enormous -- anonymous all outside groups excluding party committees have reported spending about 47% of that came from 501c groups that are not required to disclose donations. $137 million was spent on election-related activities and 52% has been on general electioneering, communications and 47% have been an independent expenditures that overtly advocate for a candidate. some of these groups, it is logical to assume, and there has been anecdotal evidence that corporations and certainly wealthy donors are providing the bulk of the funds for the u.s. chamber, for instance, has

received big contributions from a small number of large corporate donors like prudential, dow chemical, news corp., companies that have given millions of dollars at a time.. in the last cycle, the chamber received a single gift of $15 million. we are not talking about chump change for this is serious money from a few heat sources. the bottom line is that this is pretty big money. between $400 million and $500 million all told pared. in the general election, specifically the overall outsized than it was largely balanced between liberal and conservative groups. when you separate the primary from the general, there was much more balanced between the groups. most of the gop advantage was i

electioneering communications, broadcast but does not overtly advocate their election and a real imbalance was in the primary, particularly on the large conservative spending. a lot of the messaging that happened prior to the general and even via issue-advocacy on hot-button political topics like health care reform played a critical role. these two played a role and how campaigns were waged and what the messages we that were emphasized during the election, what messages were hammered on. groups may say they exist to educate the public but then their messages are highly political and they limit their spending to immediately before the election. that is highly suspect, i think our this money played a role in expanding the territory that the democrats had to defend this cycle. it had a big influence in

specific races. much of it is anonymous. it is difficult to quantify the effect of anonymity. money is not the be all and end all politics. there are lots of factors. this is one that i think has enormous significance. it is because of a huge dollar figures and this is a warm-up for a much bigger onslaught in 2012 and because it is not just the donors but the groups themselves that are hidden and secretive and unaccountable, no breaks and mortar presence, no persons that can be contacted perry the public has no means to consider the source. because these groups are often irresponsible actors flooding the airwaves with half truths and outright lies and a message often does grades -- raised the level of discourse, for these reasons, the anonymity has to be public enemy number one for campaign finance.

if you did not have the chamber, american crossroads gps, america's families first, and others participating in these races, the topic and that this is in the debate would have been different and the outcomes might possibly have been different, too. the biggest concern is not knowing who is funding these efforts. it is difficult to quantify how much things have changed if we knew the source of cash but we will never know. americans have a right to know. looking at the hard money by industry, wyers and law firms lost a large number of states and lobbyists and big pharma lost and the biggest winners in the house were retirees. the biggest winner in who won elections and the biggest loser was conversely lawyers and law firms. get ready for tort reform. >> thank you very much.

it is good to be here. i think the greatest issue before us today is money. it is not the money, it is the money. if you take any problem i think this country is having today and trace it back to the route, you'll get to the money. i don't care whether it is military, whether it is the private sector, whether it of the government or what it is. we have elected 60 odd new members to congress and having been there for 20 years myself, i will tell you they have absolutely no idea what they are about to face. i had no idea when i came. i only spent less than $200,000 and half of that i mortgaged my home to raise. i had no idea that one of these days i would become a money-

raiser and not a congressman. i went back to south carolina this past weekend i went to my sunday school class which is mostly small businessman and even a carpenter or to and what not. i tried to get a sense of what they were thinking. what i found out is that most of them voted for obama two years ago and most of them about it pretty much a democratic ticket. i will tell you about one who is a retired chief in the navy. he said," butler, than people are running my country." who are then people? he was not exactly sure who it was but he knew one thing, that it was obama and nancy pelosi without any question. you give me enough money and i

can turn the bible into pornography. you get enough money and you can make anyone into what you wanted. unfortunately, that is where we are today. i hated raising money. i hated it. after 20 years, i did not run again and that is one of the reasons i did not. why did it take you take me so long to make up my mind? it got to the point where it was simply ridiculous. the congress is a microcosm of our society. most of the people with the exception of a few bad apples are very decent, hardworking people who were trying to do the best to represent their constituents. they came to congress with these

wonderful ideas. all of a sudden, they met this wave that came over them where they had to spend half of their time raising money. most of them hated it just as i did. in this past election -- i go back and i think about teddy roosevelt. he was a trustbuster. he busted up the trust back in the first part of the 20th century but never got elected to another public office. , as you may recall. unfortunately, the business community has turned on those who helped them when they were drowning. they turned on those who saved their lives. when you talk about \ a free enterprise society, we don't have a free enterprise society. we never have.

what we have is a free enterprise society that is regulated. throughout our history dependent upon which party was in the and what the particular situation was, the regulations were loosened or whatnot. you can go back when they were listened to the point and eventually we end up in this situation we are in today. those of us who are close to the system here in washington don't think a whole lot about it. i will tell you that the average person out there is convinced that this is a crooked -- this is the crookedest city and the world. they think that no one up here is honest and they keep sendi people up there and they keep getting dishonest. that bollenbach and they send another crowd in the same thing

happens. we know that is not true with. have to do something to stop this flow money. i thought about it a great deal and frankly, over the years, i have equivocated from time to time about what we need to do and there is no perfect answer to it. i think the best answer that i can think of is we need some form of public financing. when i say public financing, i mean that financing together with a limitation on the amount of donations. think how wonderful it would be if a congressman in a perfect world did not have to go out and raise all this money and feel obligated. when i raised money, i consider

myself a very honest person and have never been accused of being otherwise, but i will tell you when somebody gave me a big check for my campaign or something or i solicited a donation, i will not tell you that i did not feel just a little, i wanted dirty, but not exactly what i had in mind for my future. i ended up having to spend too much time doing that. this past year, the supreme court ruling on opening the corporate treasuries of this country to campaigns was like pouring gasoline on a roaring fire. i think public financing as i said is not a perfect answer to the problem but i think it is the only answer that is reasonable to expect that the

congress might take seriously and do something with, although there again that is wishful thinking on my part. on going to end right now. i wanted one of my long speeches. [laughter] common cause, on which i serve on the national governing board, we work in that direction under the leadership of bob edgar and hopefully, we will be able to bring some sort of final resolution to this problem. this is a big problem and i think it is close to being the biggest problem we have. thank you. [applause] >> so now we know of a $4

billion [inaudible] looks like and it was not pretty. this one goes in the record books. it is not only the most expensive election in american history but it is our first secret election since the watergate scandal and it is our first election since 1907 where corporations and unions were allowed to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence the outcome. i don't think anyone really believes that voters were better served as a result. airwaves were flooded with negative attack ads having nothing to do with the motives of those who were buying them if you could figure out what the motives were. what does this mean for our democracy? first of all, to power five -- to paraphrase a philosopher, our elections will become nasty, brutish, and very, very long.

karl rove and other deep pocket super pacs had already started planning for the 2012 election cycle and they started before the results were in on this election. second, as butler has pointed out, we are in an era of a new arms race. the end result will be that the people who were sent to washington to grapple with our nation's problems and serve the american people will spend more and more time fund-raising and the conflicts of interest resulting from that will become more intense. within the next year, we may have to start a liberation program for the members who will be walked into cubicles dialing for dollars. this is the biggest problem -- it is already a problem what

happened in the election but also after the election is the biggest concern to us at common cause. we spent the last two years documented how the major industries in this company weather -- in this country weather is wall street or main street or the energy companies target their millions of dollars in campaign cash to members who sit on key committees that handle the bills that affect their industries. target the money to leadership. in addition to that, pick any one of those industries upwards of $1 million per day that they spend on lobbying. eds to that the climate of conflict of interest that does not serve our national interest well and add a new fear factor and that is that those who vote their conscience in this next session of congress on the tough challenges that face us whether it be jobs or energy policy or health care are just going to know that they will be

persecuted in 2012 by on limited spending from outside groups who are motivated by profit and partisan gain curre. this is clearly not what american voters want. i think charlie painted the picture there. we have seen big swings in the last three elections. we have had three change elections and a row. i think it is safe to say that the voters are not looking for one party over the other. they are looking for a change in how our government works. i am not optimistic about what they will say this time around. we have done a lot of pulling over the last year in one of the memos in your press package tries to summarize it. what we found repeatedly is that large majorities of people, 75% and more from people across party lines want to see spending limits, they want less special interest influence in their

government, they hold the party's, democrat or republican, in equal disregard, and they have completely lost faith in congress. a poll in 2006 said concerns about corruption was the number one issue on people's minds when they went to the polls. those issues polled strongly in the last two elections as well. we did a poll on election eve and found that three out of four voters are concerned that all this spending trends the faness of elections and congress possibility to act. just as many want to see congress take immediate action this year. the big question is, what is next and where do we go from here? i will lay out our 20 points. we will get into a more in the q &a, but the roberts court has

made it extremely difficult to have any impact on political spending from a regulatory approach. we need to be looking for new solutions and solutions that raise up the voices of small donors instead of focusing on trying to hold down spending by others. common cause will be working for the next several months on pulling folks together across this country to generate a new grass-roots uprising to take our democracy back and attacked these issues. i will mention three things that i think are key to that effort. one is no more secret elections. it is time for the party's to get together and put an end to what we saw this year and make sure we have full transparency in the elections moving forward. second, we need to change the way we pay for elections as

butler and others have mentioned here. it is a grossly inefficient system that wastes are lawmakers times and creates a huge complex of interest. we have worked hard on a model for small donor public funding that changes how that operates. third, i think it is important to say that the citizens united decision just cannot stand. like the dread scott decision, citizens united is based on ideology that has no basis in reality and will eat away at the soul of our democracy if it is not changed. corporations are not people and their role is to maximize profits, not serve the national interest. domestic a constitutional amendment to win this fight ultimately but it is a fight that we must win. thank you very much [applause] >> we have time for about 10

minutes of questions. who wants to go first? right here. >> i am not sure what's per cent of the reform community is engaging in this constitutional amendment activity to change what the corporations can donate. [inaudible] could they get public funding or could they go on and bring these groups together in one ad rather than [inaudible] >> the question was will the effort to create constitutional change around citizens united dilute the effort or is there a way that can be done and still get attention on the other reform topics? who wants to answer? >> i think they do not need to

be in competition with each other for their part of a comprehensive solution. there is a natural time sequence to that. we could do something with sensible action in washington are we to do something about the disclosure issue right away per we have worked for years on a model for how elections can be run that is different from now and we have had successes in states. that is something we can build consensus for criticasters an amendment is a long-term proposition. just having that discussion is part of what it takes for people to come to share and understand what the problem is and be ready to move forward. clearly, the constitutional amendment is not something we will do any time soon. >> i think it would be a positive thing. >> has citizens united been

spending in this cycle? >> the question was about the fact that citizens that had and will play out in 2012? >> my sense is that there was a psychological effect on donors to feel they no longer have to worry about breaking ball lopper they only have to worry about disclosure and even then, it is possible that disclosure would not be an issue for the irs but may be paying taxes would. that is if they were a 501c organization that was spending too much on political activity is, the threat just kept growing smaller and smaller. it opens up the field for new players to spend and the is our players not like average americans but with deep pockets. with some cooperation, -- with

some corroboration, the donors could now look at a more ample set of opportunities for them to have a political voice this year. >> [inaudible] to the numbers have to come in before you begin to notify it -- talk about the impact? >> for the outside spending, we have a sense of what has been spent. we have not looked -- there has not been enough race by race analysis on whether or not they played a role some of the action really took place before the general election to determine who would win the primary. >> i should point out that the citizens united this as much as the culmination of a series of decisions that has deregulated

campaign finance. it started with the wisconsin right to life. the constraints and outside spending have been chipped away. what we have seen is an escalation of that spending, the new part of is the spending of corporate and union money from their treasuries. i don't know if we can quantify that because a lot of that is not reported. there is good reporting work done going fro the other hand, from corporate tax filings and trying to piece it together. if you look at what the chamber of commerce that, it is hard to tell how much of that is money that was freed under citizens united and how much was part of the outside matrix. >> [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] [inaudible] >> the question was -- to what extent is there direct

corruption and what extent will the availability of the public financing help with that with small donors and the ability to support candidates who are not part of this large donor system? do you want to try that? you have spent time thinking about public campaigns? >> one of the big fights that we will have immediately this year is on preserving the office of congressional ethics. it is the only independent watchdog that we have on the hill. clearly, any time you see the amount of money spent on elections that we saw this time, the opportunities for corruption are rife. who knows what k street and others will want to call in for spending? it is important that we have an independent watchdog to look into that on public financing,

on fair elections, if we want the government to be accountable to the people, then the funding needs to come from the people and from the voters and that is the only way that you'll get rid of that conflict of interest to. >> another question from the back? >> what is the chance of that disclosure requirement being passed between now and the 2012 elections in the real world? number two, given the citizens united decision and the chipping away at campaign finances, how much of that [inaudible] >> the question is what is the realistic prospect of reform before 2012 and what kind of impact could that have? >> i fought for the disclosure

law but i don't think that as an answer to the question. the folks are -- out they're not paying that close attention, frankly. i think the answer is, as i said earlier, is public financing. i think disclosure is could and i am certainly in support of it. >> do you think it's going tohe happen? >> our best shot is in the lame- duck. we have majorities of both chambers that supported before because of the filibuster by republicans. we have an incoming senator from illinois who will be ceding -- who will be seated at this all is said he is for disclosure. i have sat in the past with senator olympia snowe and she has been a strong proponent of campaign finance reform in the

past and feels the system has gotten out of control. our best prospect would be for a stripped-down version of a disclosure bill to pass before the end of this year. i have not done the math on the prospects for next year. it's challenging. >> one more question back here. >> [inaudible] >> the question was the impact on state disclosure laws and court cases about citizens united being applied at the state level for disclosure and where the prospects there?

-- what are the prospects there? >> i think it will have a positive effect. the last question before this, i don't think the lame-duck section is going to do a darn thing. i think it will last about a week and i will tell you why it's not going to be -- the democrats has -- have had as the presidents have said, a shellacking. they are uneasy about who they e and what they're doing. if that's the case, you're not going to get anything positive out of it. >> on the state front, citizens united not only overturned federal law, but restrictions on corporate and union spending in 24 states. as you mentioned, there has been a concerted, long-term plan to dismantle our campaign finance

laws and have now set their sights on disclosure. maybe know the number better than i do, but i think 10 states are challenging disclosure laws. he has not got much traction on that yet. of any of the areas, this is where we have the most support on the current supreme cou. it is going to be a big fight and it's going to be a fight to improve disclosure laws in the state's to keep pace with the new realities of spending. >> [inaudible]

[inaudible] [inaudible] >> [inaudible]

[inaudible] >> the question was where role cannot press play to combat some of the misinformation that may be out there through some of these efforts. >> first of all, the health care reform bill in particular is incredibly complex and there is a lot of effort by the media to distill that for people. but there also been efforts by groups that have tried to do factual, hard hitting truth telling to a lot of the misinformation about health care reform or financial reform or the stimulus or the bailout, to inform voters about the issues

and call "pants on fire" when an organization is outright lying. there have been a number of efforts, i don't know if as risen to the level of notice to the voters, particularly in the din of information about these races that have been put out by these groups in broadcast. >> [inaudible] [inaudible] any --n't think there's

do you think there's any likelihood of earmarked reform? >> the presumptive speaker of the house has been there for 20 or 22 years. he has never done an earmark as i understand it. he is adamantly opposed to it. whether there will be legislation passed outlawing them or whatnot, this will be a project. i think in the senate, jim demand, who is having a big row down in south carolina about getting an earmarked for the port of charleston -- whether i agree with him or not, he is consistent. i think you're going to see a decrease in earmarks. >> unfortunately, we have reached the end of our time. please join me in thanking our panel for this enriching

conversation. [applause] thank you for joining us and thank you for common cause for putting this event on. [captioning performed by national captioning institute] [captions copyright national cable satellite corp. 2010]

>> republicans have gained control of the u.s. house for the next congress, but boats are still being counted in several races. new york and california each have two races to be called. one in illinois, kentucky and texas. in all, republicans are leading in races of four of those seats and democrats are leading in three. both are being counted in one set -- votes are being counted in alaska for the senate. there will begin going through the right in ballots for senator we set murkowski.

is not clear how many votes were for her or the 159 other right in canada. a recount is likely in the minnesota race for governor. a recount is automatic if the margin is less than 0.5% as it is it -- as is expected to be one certified this month. both candidates say they are engaging and will be ready to govern oe a winner is declared. the house returns for a lame- duck section and the republicans will choose their leadership team. when republicans take control of the house, republican leader john boehner is expected to be elected speaker. this morning, he will talk about his plan that we will have live coverage here at 11:45 on c- span. >> with most election results final, use the c-span video

library to see what the candidates said on the campaign trail and the more than 140 debates that c-span covered. it is washington your way. >> in an ideal world, the fact there are people shorting the mortgage market would have sent signals to everyone saying there are all of the smart investors to think this thing is going to crash and burn. but the market was opaque enough that you could not see a the way you could see it in the stock market. because of the way these instruments work, you are not betting on real mortgages, but the casino version of a mortgage. >> in 2003, she , sheenron. this week, she will talk about the current financial crisis and the future of the american economy. that sunday night at 8:00 eastern. >> president obama has arrived in south korea for the g-20 summit.

earlier today, he was in indonesia, the world less populous muslim nation. he spoke to more than 6000 mostly young people at the university of indonesia. this is about half an hour. ladies and dillon, the president of the united states, -- ladies and gentlemen, the president of the united states, barack obama. [applause] [applause] >> thank you very much,

everybody. it is wonderful to be here at the university of indonesia. to the faculty, staff and students. thank you very much for your hospitality. [applause] thank you for this wonderful welcome. thank you to the people of jakarta and the people of indonesia. [applause] i am so glad that i made it back to indonesia and michelle was able to join me.

we had a couple of false starts this year, but i was determined to visit the country that has meant so much to me. unfortunately, this visit is too short, but i look forward to coming back one year from now when indonesia hosts the east asian summit. [applause] before i go any further, i want to say our thoughts and prayers are with all of those indonesians' affected by the recent tsunami and volcanic eruptions, particularly those who have lost loved ones and to have been displaced. i want you all to know that as always, the united states stands with indonesia in responding to natural disasters and we're pleased to be able to help as needed. as neighbors help neighbors and families take in the displaced, i know the strength and resilience of the indonesian people will pull you through

once more. let me begin with a simple statement -- i first came to this country when my mother married and indonesian. , i was coming to a different world. but the people of indonesia quickly made me feel at home. jakarta looked very different in those days. with buildings that are no more than a few stories tall. this was back in 1967 or 1968.

most of you were not born yet. the hotel indonesia was one of the few high-rises. there is just one big department store and that was it. they outnumbered automobiles in those days. he did not have all the big highways that you have today. most of them gave way to unpaved roads. so we moved -- we live in a small house and had a man the tree out front. i learned to love indonesia while flying kites and running along the fields, catching dragonflies buying from street

vendors. i still remember the call of the vendors. [applause] but most of all i remember the people. the old men and women who welcomed us with smiles. the children who made a foreign child feel like a neighbor and friend. the teachers who helped me learn about this country. because indonesia is made up of thousands of islands and hundreds of languages and people from scores of regions and groups, my time here people.

while my stepfather, like most indonesian's, was raised a muslim, he firmly believed all religions were worthy of respect. in this way -- [applause] in this way, he reflected the spirit of religious tolerance that is enshrined in indonesia's's constitution and remains one of this country's defining and inspiring characteristics. [applause] i stayed here for four years. a time that helped shape my childhood, it saw the birth of my wonderful sister, and a time it made such an impression on my mother that she kept returning to indonesia for the next 20 years to live, work and travel and pursue her passion of

promoting opportunity in indonesia's's villages. especially opportunity for women and girls. [applause] i was so honored when the president at the state dinner presented an award on behalf of my mother, recognizing the work she did. she would have been so proud because my mother held indonesia and its people very close to her hard for her entire life. [applause] so much has changed in the four decades since i boarded a plane to move back to hawaii. if you ask me or any of my schoolmates who knew me back then, i don't think any of us could have anticipated that one day i would come back to jakarta as the president of the united states. [applause]

few could have anticipated, the remarkable story of indonesia over these last four decades. the jakarta i once knew has grown into a teeming city of nearly 10 million, with skyscrapers that dorothy hotel indonesia and thriving centers of culture and commerce. well my indonesian friends and i used to run in field with water buffalo and goats, a new generation of indonesian's is among the most wired in the world, connected through cell phones and social networks. while indonesia as a young nation focused inward, a growing in the nation now plays a key role in the asia-pacific and in the global economy. [applause] this change also extends to

politics. when my stepfather was a boy, he watched his own father and older brother leave home to fight and die in the struggle for indonesian independence. i am happy to be here on heroes day to honor the memory of so many indonesians who have sacrificed on behalf of this great country. [applause] when i moved to jakarta, it was 1967. it was a time that all the great suffering and conflict in parts of this country. even though my stepfather had served in the army, the violence and killing during that time of political upheaval was largely unknown to me because it was unspoken by my indonesian family and friends. in my household, like somebody others across indonesia, the memories of that time were an invisible presence. indonesians' have their independence, but oftentimes

they are afraid to speak their minds about issues. in the years since then, indonesia has started its own course through an extraordinarily democratic transformation, from the rule of an iron fist to the rule of the people. in recent years, the world has watched with hope and admiration as indonesian's embrace the peaceful transfer of power and the direct election of leaders. just as your democracy has -- is symbolized by your elected president and legislature, your democracy is sustained and fortified by its checks and balances. a dynamic civil society, political parties and unions, a vibrant media and at engaged citizens who have been assured that in indonesia, there will be no turning back from democracy. even as this land of my youth has changed in some anyways, those things i learned to love

about indonesia, the spirit of tolerance written into your constitution, symbolized in moscow, churches and temples stand alongside each other -- symbolized in mosques, churches and temples stand alongside each other. [applause] unity in diversity. [applause] this is the foundation of indonesia's's example to the world and this is why indonesia will play such an important part in the 21st century. today, i returned to indonesia as a friend. but also as a president who seeks a deep and enduring partnership between our two countries. [applause]

as vast and diverse countries, as neighbors on either side of the pacific, and above all as democracies, the united states and indonesia are bound together by shared interests and shared values. yesterday, the president and i announced a new comprehensive partnership between the united states and indonesia. we are increasing ties between our governments many different areas. just as importantly, we are increasing ties among our people. this is a partnership of equals. grounded in mutual interests and mutual respect. with the rest of my time today, i would like to talk about what a story i have just told is so important to the united states and to the world. i will focus on three areas closely related and fundamental to human progress. development, democracy, and

religious faith. first, the french between the united states and indonesia can advance are each will interest in development. when i moved to indonesia, it would have been hard to imagine a future in which the prosperity of families in chicago and jakarta would be connected. but our economies are now global. and indonesian's have experienced bo the promise and the perils of globalization. from the shock of the asian financial crisis in the '90s to the millions with the out of poverty because of increased trade and commerce. what that means and what we have learned in the recent economic crisis is that we have a stake in each other's success. america has a statement in indonesia's growing and developing with prosperity broadly shared among the indonesian people.

a rising middle class here in indonesia means new markets for our goods, just as america is a market for goods coming from indonesia. we are investing more in indonesia and our exports have grown by nearly 50%. we are opening doors for americans and indonesian's to do business with one another. america has a stake in an entity should that plays its rightful role in shaping the global economy. gone are the days when seven or eight countries would come together to determine the direction of global markets. that is why the g-20 is now the center of international economic cooperation, so that emerging economies like indonesia have a greater voice and also bear a greater responsibility for guiding the global economy. through its leadership of the g-20 anti-corruption group,

indonesia should lead on the world stage by example in a bracing transparencynd accountability. -- by embracing transparency and accountability. [applause] america has a stake in indonesia that pursues sustainable development. the way we grow will determine the quality of our lives and health of our planet. that is why we are developing clean technologies that can preserve indonesias precious natural resources. america welcomes your country's strong leadership in the global effort to combat climate change. if above all, america has a stake in the success of the indonesian people. under the headlines of today, we must build bridges between our people because our future security and prosperity is shared. that is exactly what we're doing, by increasing among our

scientists and researchers and working together to foster entrepreneurship. i'm especially pleased we have committed to double the number of american and indonesian students studying in our respective countries. [applause] we want more indonesian students in american schools and we lot more american students to come study in this country. [applause] we want to forge new ties and a greater understanding between young people in this young century. these are the issues that really matter in our daily lives. development is not simply about numbers on a balance sheet. to compete in a growing

glut -- in a growing world. it is about the forces that have transformed the jakarta i once knew, can translated to a better life for all indonesians', at all human beings alive marked by dignity and opportunity. is inseparable from the role of democracy. today, we sometimes hear democracy stands in the way of economic progress. this is not a new argument. particularly in times of change and economic uncertainty, some to development by trading away the rights of human beings for the power of the state. but that's not what i saw on my trip to india. that is not what i see here in indonesia. your achievements demonstrate that democracy and development

reinforce one another. you have none setbacks along the way. america is no different. our own constitution spoke of the effort to forge a more perfect union. that is a dirty we have traveled ever since. we have adored civil war and we have struggled to extend equal rights to all our citizens. -- we have endured a civil war. but it has allowed us to become stronger and more prosperous walls of becoming a more just and free society. like other countries that emerged from colonial rule in the last century, ionesia struggled at sacrificed for the rights to determine your destiny. that is what heroes day is all about -- and indonesia that belongs to indonesia. but you also ultimately decided freedom cannot mean replacing the strong hand of a colonizers with a strong man of your own.

of course, democracy is messy. not everyone likes the results of every election. you go through your ups and downs. but the journey is worthwhile and goes beyond casting a ballot. institutions to check the concentration of power. takes open markets to allow individuals to thrive. it takes a free press and independent justice system to insist on accountability. it takes open society and active citizens to reject inequality and injustice. these are the forces that will propel indonesia forward and it will require a refusal to tolerate the corruption that stands in the way of opportunity. a commitment to transparency gives every indonesia a stake in their government and the belief that the freedom of the nation's -- the freedom

indonesians' have fought for is what polls this nation together. that is the message of the indonesian to have advances democratic story. from those who fought 55 years ago today to the students who marched peacefully for democracy in the 1990's, two leaders to embrace the peaceful transition of power in this young century. because ultimately, it will be the rights of citizens that will stitch together this remarkable nation. an insistence that every child born in this country should be treated equally. that all indonesians' have equal rights. that effort extends to the example that indonesia is now setting abroad.

indonesia took the initiative to establish the bali democracy countries to share their experiences and best practices in fostering democracy. indonesia has been a the forefront pushing for human- rights. the nations of southeast asia must have the right to determine their own destiny. the united states will strongly support that right. but the people of southeast asia must have the right to determine their own destiny as well and that is why we have condemned the elections in burma that were neither free nor fair. that is why we support your vibrant civil society working with counterparts across this region. there is no reason why respect for human rights should stop at the border of any country. and in hand, that is what development and democracy are about.

the notion that certain values are universal. prosperity without freedom is just another form of poverty because there are aspirations that human beings share. the liberty of knowing your leader is accountable to you and you will be locked up for disagreeing with them. the opportunity to get an education and be able to work with dignity. the freedom to practice your face without fear or restriction. those are universal values. they must be observed everywhere. religion is a final topic that want to address today. like democracy and development, it is fundamental to the indonesian story. like the other asian nations i'm visiting on this trip, indonesia is steeped in spirituality. a place where people worship god in many different ways. along with this rich diversity,

it is also home to the world's largest moslem population. a truth i came to know as a boy when i heard that call to prayer across jakarta. just as individuals are not defined solely by their faith, indonesia is defined by more than its muslim polation. but we know relations between the united states said muslim community has frayed over many years. as president, i have made it a priority to begin to repair these relations. [applause] as part of that effort, i went to cairo last june and i called for a new beginning between the united states and moslems around the world. when it creates a path for us to move beyond our differences. i said then and i will repeat now that no single speech can't eradicate years of mistrust.

but i believed then and i believe today that we have a choice. we can choose to be defined by our differences and get into a future of suspicion and mistrust. or we can choose to do the hard work of forging common ground and commit ourselves to the steady pursuit of progress. i can promise you no matter what setbacks may come, the united states is committed to human progress. that is who we are, that is what we have done, and that is what we will do. [applause] we know well the issues that have caused tensions for many years. these are issues i dressed in cairo. in the 17 months have passed since that speech, we have made some progress, but we have much more work to do. innocent civilians in america and indonesia and across the world are still targeted by violent extremists. i have made it clear that

america is not and never will be at war with islam. instead, all of us must work together to defeat al qaeda and its affiliates who have no claim to be leaders of any religion, certainly not a great world religions like islam. but those who want to build must not see that the ground to the terrorists who seek to destroy. this is not a task for america alone. here in indonesia, you have made progress in rooting out extremists and combating them. in afghanistan, we continue to work with a coalition of nations to build the capacity of the afghan government to secure its future. our shared interest is in building peace in a war-torn land. a piece that provides no safe haven for violent extremists and provides hope for the afghan people. meanwhile, we have made progress of our core commitments -- our effort to end the war in iraq.

nearly 100,000 american troops have now left iraq under my friend and see. -- under my presidency. iraqis have taken full responsibility for their security. we will continue to support iraq as it forms an inclusive governme and we will bring all our troops home. in the middle east, we have faced false starts and setbacks. but we have been persistent in our pursuit of peace. israelis and palestinians restarted direct talks. but enormous obstacles remain. there should be no illusion that peace and security will come easy. but let there be no doubt, america will spare no effort in working for the outcome that is just and is in the interest of all the parties involved. two states, israel and palestine, living side-by-side in peace and security. that is our goal. [applause]

the stakes are high in resolving all of these issues. our world has grown smaller. while those forces that connect s have unleashed a great opportunity and great wealth, they also empower those who seek to derail progress. one bomb in a marketplace can obliterate the bustle of daily commerce. one whispered remark can obscure the truth and set off violence between communities that once lived together in peace. in an age of rapid change and colliding cultures, what we share as humabeings can sometimes be lost. but i believe the history of both america and indonesia should give us hope. it is a story written into our

national mottos. in the united states, our motto is e pluribus unim. out of many, one. unity in diversity. we are to nations that have traveled different paths. our nation's show that hundreds of millions who hold different beliefs can be united in freedom under one flag. we're now building on a shared humanity. . people who will study in each other's schools to the entrepreneurs forging ties that can lead to greater prosperity and through our embrace of fundamental democratic values and human aspirations. before i came here, i visited a place of worship that was still under construction when i lived in jakarta. i admired its soaring minarets

imposing domes, and welcoming space. but its name in history speaks to what makes indonesia great. its construction was a testament to the nation's struggle for freedom. moreover, this house of worship for many thousands of muslims was designed by christian architect. [applause] such is indonesias spirit. such is the message of indonesia's's inclusive philosophy. across an archipelago that contains some of god's most beautiful creations, island's rising above an ocean named for peace, people choose to worship god as they please. islam flourishes, but so do

other faiths. development is strengthened by an emerging democracy. ancient traditions indoor even as a rising power is on the move. this is not to say that indonesia is not without imperfections. no country is. but here, we can find the ability to bridge divides of race and region and religion. an ability to see yourself in other people. as a child of a different race who came here fr a distant country, i found this spirit in the greeting i received upon moving here. as a christian visiting a mosque on this visit, i found it in the words of a leader who was asked about my visit and said muslims are also allowed in churches. we are all god's followers.

that spark of the divine lives within each of us. we cannot give in to doubt or cynicism or despair. the stories of indonesia and america should make us optimistic because it tells us that history is on the side of human progress. unity is more powerful than division. the people of this world can live together in peace. may our two nations working together, with faith and determination, share these truths with all mankind. [speaking in an asian dialect] thank you -- >>[applause]

[applause] ♪ ♪

♪

♪ ♪

♪ >> president obama is now in south korea. he arrived this morning for the g-20 summit which begins

tomorrow. is a two day meeting of leaders from the world of the top -- from the world -- from the top 20 countries. he arrives domestic criticism of the fed decision to buy $6 billion worth ofbonds. the u.s. house returns for a lame-duck session next week. republicans will use the time to choose their new leadership team for the new congress. when republicans take control of the house, republican leader john boehner is expected to be elected speaker. he will talk about plans for the new year and we have live coverage of that in just a few moments here on c-span. more now about that transition from a reporter. >> one of the things we heard from the house republican transition team is that they want to cut the cost of running the u.s. house. any specifics on that? >> no specifics.

their meeting. and they're looking through a lot of successions, trying to figure out where they might be able to find some efficiencies and where they might be able to cut. but they did not outline any specific cuts. we may hear from them later this week and there may be more specific than, but nothing yet. >> what else are they talking about? >> they're talking about mapping out the rules and daily rhythms they will be responsible for in congress. this is everything from the schedule, when members will be required to be in washington for votes at when they will be home for recess. they're talking about all kinds of other issues, the mundane operations that govern the house but that are hugely important in determining when certain bills come to the floor, how they get voted on and how committees do

their work. the also be looking at the cost of running congress, the size of the committees, the size of the staff of all corners of the capital. >> we leave this now to go to a life conference with house minority leader, john boehner. >> i just got an update from -- on the progress they're making in the transition effort. i would like to thank greg for his hard work. is important because we have to fix the congress so that congress can focus in on americans priorities. their priorities are pretty straightforward. that's our plan. the american people want the uncertainty to go away so we can begin to create jobs in america. when you look at our plans to reduce spending, to the economy

going again, and repeal the health care law that frankly get in the way of job creation. you can see we have a lot of work to do, but i am pleased great is chairing the transition committee. as you know, he has been might go to guy over the last year. and everything i have given him, he has done a great job. >> thank you very much. i think we got off to a really good start. we had a couple of our meeting on monday night and had a good presentation from different folks about the issues here. we want to make things more open and accessible to the public's interest, by the way. that's a statement and giving to everyone, this is the public's business. how do we open up, make it more accessible and bring the public in and make this government more

accessible to the people. how do we get the cost savings, improve the efficiency, how do we fix broken cameras -- [laughter] how do we do the things that you do when you are in charge. how do we build a house for the people? we are putting a lot of ideas out there and wanted to understand that. having been a small business owner for over 20 years, i ask all my people i work with how do you fix it? let's throw it up there and talk about it. does mean every idea is the when you go with, but i want to create the atmosphere where regan have legitimate brainstorming equities issues and resolve them in a positive way. and take advantage of modern technology. would it be great if you could use modern technology said he didn't have 200 copies of every single amendment in the bill and everyone could see it online. i don't know the get there

tomorrow, next week or a year from now, but we should invite the people who could help us implement new technology into this facility. so wherever you are in america, you can watch business be done and help us do that business better. >> what is your agenda for next week's meeting with the president? >> have a nice conversation and figure out how to make all the current tax rate prominent silicon help and the uncertainty stopping employers from hiring more people. talk about how we can reduce spending. i think it's important we reduce spending to pre-bailout and pre- stimulus levels. >> [inaudible] >> i believe strongly and if you look at the pledge to america, we say there ought to be a freeze on hiring of new federal employees. frankly, we ought to freeze the

pay. it's gotten to a point where the average federal worker makes twice as much as the average private sector workers. >> your preference to make all tax cut permanent, are you willing to compromise to get something done, particularly compromise on extending only a highest tax brackets temporarily? >> police said this about 500 times. i think extent -- i only said this about 500 times. i think extending all tax cuts will help the uncertainty and help small businesses create jobs again. you cannot invest when you don't know what the rules are and don't know what the tax rates are going to be next year. that's why making these prominent will be the most important thing we can do to help create jobs in the country. >> have you worked out more security arrangements [inaudible]

>> i have talked to our security folks about the security involved in my new role, but over the last 20 years, i have flown back and forth to my district on commercial aircraft. and i'm going to continue to do that. >> every new majority says they're going to do something. can you tell us about your commitment and how we can judge it in one year's time? >> i gave a speech in late september or early october at the american enterprise institute, where i laid out exactly how i intend to run the house. it needs to be more open, more transparent, and it needs to be more accountable. you will see from day one that i say what i mean and i mean when i say. >> [inaudible]

>> republicans have gained control of the u.s. house next year, but boats are still being counted in seven u.s. house races. new york and california each have two races to be called. one each in illinois, kentucky and texas. overall, the associated press reports republicans are leading in the race for four of the seats and democrats are leading in three. a recount is likely in the governor's race in minnesota. the republican trails the democrat by about 8700 notes. a recount is automatic if the margin is less than 0.5%, as it is expected to be when results are certified later this month.

votes are still being counted in one senate race -- alaska. election workers are going to attend the thousands of ballots today, accounting right in ballots for senator lee said -- senator lee said murkowski. it is not clear how many votes were for the senator or the 159 other right in candidates. yesterday, mr. millar filed suit to heavily correctly spelled ballots be counted. with most election results final and winners preparing to govern, use the c-span video library to see what the winners said on the campaign trail and on the 140 debates c-span covered. it is washington, your way. >> book to be this weekend -- in one of his first live tv appearances since its publication, george w. bush on

his memoir, "decision points per "the former president discusses the decisions of his administration and personal life. that's sunday at 4:00 eastern on c-span2. >> national transportation safety board chairman, deborah herdsman, says one in five licensed drivers in the u.s. will be age 65 or over. this is remarks from the opening day of a conference looking at aging drivers and safety. we're going to show that to you now. in this portion, an overview of the issues the board is looking into regarding aging drivers. colleagues, member and earl. very good. i know we'll have some breaks. i encourage you to interact.

welcome to the nts board room. we begin on safety, mobility, and aging drivers. many of you are familiar with the safety board for it's role in investigating transportation accidents and determining the probable cause of those accident. however, we also have the opportunity to bring leading experts together with the safety risk and identifying solutions, even when they activity is not tied to a specific accident. today, we meet for that purpose. we are convening the public forum to explore the safety issues related to the aging drive and to discuss possible strategies to prevent and reduce accidents, injuries, and fatalities within this growing population. america is aging. baby boomers are now well into their middle years. people on average are living well into their 70s, compared with their 40s, a century ago.

and more and more seniors are on the road than ever before. in fact, 30 million licensed drivers in the united states are 65 or older. and the forecast is in 15 years, in 2025, this age group will comprise more than 20% of the entire u.s. driving population. that's one in every five drivers on the road. there's no precise way to define the term aging driver. just as no two 17-year-old drivers have the same set of driving skills, capabilities, and experience, neither do two 70-year-olds, two 80-year-olds, or two 90-year-olds. very is why the in every age group and age alone is not a good predictor of how one will perform along the

way it -- behind the wheel. factors like cognition, and injury tolerance, are also predicted. so, when we talk about the aging driver, we mean age in relation to one's capabilities. not age as in old or senior. tend to be conscious and safety oriented. they wear their seat belts, they may choose to forego driving when it's dark or when the weather is poor. they are less likely to speed or drive intoxicated. and they drive fewer miles than do other age groups. the good news is that drivers age 70 and older involved in fatal crashes has decreased in the past decade by 20%. even though the number of licensed drivers in this age group and the miles logged as increased. despite the encouraging numbers, we also know when there is an accident, it's the older driver

who's more likely to be killed or seriously injuries. they simply don't fare as well as younger drivers. this forum is an exciting opportunity to better understand highway safety trends. and to discuss ways to minimize the safety risks for a growing segment of drivers. whether we are the older driver deciding whether or not to set the keys aside, or the older drivers family or community, we are all responsible for making sure that no matter what your age or destination, everyone arrives safely. while many of these issues we will discuss are topics that have been explored by other organizations in recent years, this is the first time the ntsb is analyzing them in this format. we are very fortunate to have some of the leading experts in highway safety, academia, the medical community, and industry here with us today.

i'd like to take a moment to recognize some of the groups that will be participating in the forum. triple a, the triple a foundation for traffic safety, the alliance of automobile manufacturers, the insurance institute for highway safety, the american association of motor vehicle administrators, the american occupational therapy association, the governor's highway safety administration, the american opt metric association, the international association of police chiefs, national institute on aging, federal highway administration, the national highway safety administration, and aarp. thank you to all of the participates for sharing your time, your insight, and your expertise. as forour road map for the next two days, this morning we will begin with a discuss of safety metrics, accidents, injuries, and fatalities, and how we use

these metrics to assess the risk associated with aging and mobility. as part of this discussion we will also consider the travel characteristics and the travel needs of an aging population. we will then break for lunch. i'm pleased to announce during the lunch break, both today and tomorrow, we will be showing the documentary "old people driving" by director thérèse hoss. it shows milton and herbert as they confront the end of their driving years. i encourage you to take the opportunity to view the documentary. this afternoon, we dedicate a panel for aging drivers and passengers. this is an important issue, because at the core of our mission here at the ntsb is to prevent death and injuries. we know that older drivers face an increased likelihood of

injury, hospitalization, and death as a result of a crash. and because older drivers have decreased injury tolerance, we will also examine how to better protect older drivers in crashes, as well as the limitations of current occupant protection systems and the potential benefit of new technologies. we will then turn to highway and vehicle design. and how changes to those designs can affect the aging drivers performance. intelligent transportation technologicals are also emerging as safety enhancers. we will discuss its advances as well. the improvements to the vehicle environment discussed by this panel benefit not just the aging driver, but drivers in every age group. tomorrow morning we will resume by focusing on driver performance. how we qualify the capabilities such as self-screening and

driving assessment, and how we remediate the decuriaments once they are identified. when we then conclude the program with state programs and practices, including state licensing schemes, and the role of medical review board and state safety programs. i know this is a lot of ground to cover in two days. it's my hope the dialogue will be honest and open. for some, our discussion maybe eye opening. while for others, it maybe an opportunity to spell some of the many myths and misunderstandings about the aging driver. but even more significantly, this forum likely represents a collaborative launching point towards improved highway safety for us all. now for a few housekeeping items. as a reminder please silence your cell cell phones and famile yourself with the emergency exit

that is are available in the front of the room or behind you. we welcome the public to view the forum, both those in the audience, and those viewing via webcast on the ntsb web site. companies of the agenda are available outside the board room and the information of the participates and descriptions of the parties is also posted on the safety board's web site. so we've invited 20 panelist and over a dozen organizations to take part in this forum. notably, there are more organizations participating as parties that is typical at an accident hearing. this stems from our desire to fully air the range of voices on the topic. i urge you to work through your spokesperson and rotate the spokesperson as we move through the panels. you will find question cards on your tables. you can pass your questions to

the spokesperson on those question cards. because we have such a full agenda, we appreciate your cooperation in helping us keep on schedule. and ask that panelist respect time limits and keep discussions focused on the subject at hand rather than slip into topics covered by other panels. we recognize that all stakeholders are not represented in person at this forum. because it was not possible to accommodate everyone who wanted to participate, those individuals and organizations who wish to submit written comments may do so until november 30th, 2010. finally, i'd like to take a moment to thnk the ntsb staff for their efforts in organizationing and preparing for this forum. undertaking of this scope do not simply happen. they are the end product of many months of long hours of meticulous preparation and planning. thank you to the staff for your hard work and dedication. in particular, i'd like to

recognize the technical staff who made the forum possible. dr. deb bruce, dr. molloy, and janice colins, dr. mitch garber, dr. ivan chung, and dr. poland, steve and dave from the office of communications. we also have some excellent technical and administrative support by avis clark, michelle hall, robert turner, and bridget. with all of that, we are ready to begin. we will begin with the first panel on safety, data, assessment, on transportation risk and aging.

we will begin with the metrics to help qualify what we know about the risk of aging drivers. because past forecasts that have projected an increase in accidents and injuries associated with aging drivers has not materialized, we would like to understand why. this panel will examine the demographics of the u.s. population, at fault accident rates by age, the injury data for drivers, passengers, and pedestrians, the discussion will factor in consideration of exposure measures, such as the number of licensed drivers, active drivers, and trips or trip miles traveled by age group. we will also discuss how crashes differentially affect aging travelers. my colleagues here at the safety board, dr. deb bruce, and dr. braver have organized the panel. dr. bruce, would you please

introduce the panelist? >> first, i'd like to introduce the four panelist. then we'll return to the comments. ann mccartt from the insurance institute is the senior vice president. dr. mccartt recently co-authored a study with dr. chung in 2010. we've asked her to talk about some of those findings today. we received her b.a. from duke and doctorate from the state university of new york at albany. our second panelist, dr. sandra rosenbloom is a professor of womens studies at the university of arizona. she directed the roy b. drakeman institute, a research and public service unit of the university from 1990 to 2004. dr. rosenbloom has a masters in

public policy and a phd from california. dr. bonnie dobbs is at the centering for disease control. she's a professor in the faculty of medicine and dennist -- dentistry. she has a phd from medicine from the university in alberto. ann dellinger is at the centers for disease control and prevention. the center he's affiliated is the national center for injury prevention and control. dr. dellinger conducts research

in safety focusing on older drivers, occupant, and injury risk behavior. dr. dellinger received her bs in biology from the university in san diego, her masters degree from the graduate school of public health at san diego university, and her doctorate in epidemiology from the university of california at los angeles. we've asked each of you to get started this morning in summary remarks in your area of expertise. we'd like to take about 20 minutes to cover that. i'll help us do that by sort of stepping in and introducing the next topic as we go along. dr. mccartt, would you begin by talking to us about the trends and limitations of safety data and within that context, tell us what we know about the safety of drivers, 70, 80, and 90 years old?

[inaudible comment] >> anne anne -- there's a green light. that's it. >> the crash rate beginning to increase at age 70. this is true for fatal crashes and for crashes of all severity. as we've heard and know, the population of people 70 and older is increases, and is supposed to increase dramatically soon. by 2040, it will have doubled. when we look at the percent of the population with licenses, if we look at middle age drivers, we can see for about the last decade, that percent has been pretty stable. when we look at older drivers, these are three, 70, 79, 80 and older, you can see very dramatic increases and the percentage of people holding on to the

licenses, the oldest drivers 80 and older. when you put the things together, when we expected to see when we look at crash test of older people was an increase, in fact, weave seen just the -- we've seen just the opposite. when we look at crash tests from 1975 and forward, after a study, they peaked in 1997. then they've been coming down and coming down very strongly. two points that i want to make about fatal crashes of older drivers, first, most older drivers involved in fatal crashes are driving a passenger vehicle as opposed to more and more younger people driving a motorcycle, for example. and in a fatal crash involving the older driver, the people who die are primarily either the driver, the older driver, or the older driver passengers, who also tend to be older.

we wanted to look at the trends. first the fatal crash license for licensed driver. we looked at the middle age group for comparison. you can see for this group in the last couple of years, their fatal crash rate has some down. when you look at the older driver trends, you can see again, especially for the oldest driver, a very dramatic decline. so for drivers 80 and older, the crash rate has come down by half. we had two questions. after the initial study, one was two things could explain this. one is that older drivers might be getting into fewer crashes. and the second thing that might explain is it maybe they are also doing better at surviving crashes when they are in one. so we turn to the best data that we could find to look at nonfatal crashes. we weren't able to do that using

the national databases. we went to 13 states database, when looked at the prolicensed crash rate, these are nonfatal. we did see a decline. again, when we look at the older drivers, their decline was larger. when we look at property damage on the crashes, these are the middle age drivers. their crash rate went up a little. we look at older drivers, there's rates for down. so the answer to the first question is, yes. the crash risk overall for older drivers has come down. to look at the second question the survivorrability, we again look to these 13 states and we measured survivorrability in the terms of the percent of older drivers who died in a crash and compared them to middle age drivers. these are the middle age drivers, slight increase in the percent who died in a crash.

looking at older drivers, down. so the answer to the second question is, yes, there are less -- there are crash risk has gone down. when they are in a crash, older drivers are less likely to die. and a stronger way than compared to middle age drivers. we can -- i think in the questions we'll talk more about this. we can't -- we don't have good explanations yet for this. these are some of the high pot sis -- hypothesis that we have. there maybeindication that that is the case, older drivers are healthier and better physical condition, emergency medical and services may have proved -- have improved especially for older drivers. we think there's probably some travel patterns, looking at the latest national travel survey, older drivers are driving more in the aggregate, and also on average. and we know for drivers of any

age, drivers who don't drive a lot of miles have higher crash rates. we think either the quantity of the patterns of driving may help explain some of this. finally, it maybe that we know that roller drivers tend to self-regulate. at least some of them. if they are doing this, if there's an increase in the self-regulation, that might point to some answers. and then finally, just a last point, again, i think we'll talk about this in the questions, there are some really important limitations in trying to take a look at understanding why older driver crashes are down. we don't have, as i said, a good national sample of nonfatal crashes that would allow us to look in detail at the crashes of older drivers. we don't have perfect licensing

data. we know they maybe critically problematic for older drivers when the state has a pretty long renewal perod. it may be that the numbers may over estimate how many older drivers are licensed. finally, as i indicated, we do have a national household travel survey. the sample is still being weighted, but we only have these surveys every few years. they could be more detailed than they are. and, you know, i certainly would like to make the point that's really important exposure measure for any age group, but maybe especially for older drivers is their travel patterns. thank you. >> thank you, dr. mccartt. our next panelist, dr. rosenbloom, what do we know about whether older people live

and how that affects their travel patterns? [inaudible] >> now i have two mics. and soon will electrocute myself. about 75% of older people either live in suburban or rural areas nationally. but they are over represented, for example, in rural areas where you could have -- we're talking about one in five drivers might be over 65 nationally. but it may well be 40, 50% in some rural areas. and folks as old as 80, 85, 90 can still be driving. that's their only option. one the issues is if folks are living in low density areas, their alternatives to driving is this. there's significant differences between women and men. women are substantially more likely, women over 65 to live

alone. so they have no other driver in the house when they start to have problems. they are significantly less likely to have financial resources, to allow them to purchase services or alternatives, have goods delivered to them when they no longer feel safe in driving. we know that older women generally seize driving much before older men because they don't feel comfortable, it's often not some kind of sharp medical reason or because they've had a crash, but because they don't feel confident. but at the same time, we know that over the last three or four decades, older people have been driving longer, they have longer trips, they make more trips, and the folks who have driven their whole lives will not have made the kinds of -- will have made the kinds of life decisions about where to live and so forth, based on the convenience and access and flexibility of the private car.

it's hard to see how we can substitute for that. so there's a tremendous tension between mobility and safety. i know we are focusing largely on safety. i think we have to deal with the fact that a lot of people will keep driving, maybe when they no longer want to, or when they are no longer safety because they simply have no other alternatives. it's very common, i speak on this a lot, that someone will get up in the audience and say, well, my mother won't have any problem when she stops driving. she'll use one the community resources available to her. later on in our discussions, if we have time, i have some slides that show how unlikely thereby enough community resources to deal with the vast number of older people who might want to cease or reduce driving. the resources aren't there. if we want to talk about safety, one the things we have to talk about is how to provide mobility for people that want to stop

driving or should stop driving. in addition, i think there are important issues about self-regulation, but they -- we have tremendous evidence that older drivers in particularly, women self-regular -- self-regulate. self-regulating can impact your quality of life and your mobility. it's one thing to make three right turns instead of making a left turn. that doesn't have a lot of impact on your life. it's quite another to avoid all congestioned areas, to avoid driving in the morning peak, the noon peak, or the evening peak, it's quite another to avoid certain brutes or so forth. :

>> one of the things we know is once they retire they tend to make longer nonwork trips than younger people. we think that because you remove the constraint of having to shop or take care of activities near your work location, once you're freed from those, older people are interested in going to different places to shop and different places for socializing. i think these patterns interact with safety issues in a profound way, so what i want to leave the

panel with is you cannot address safety issues independent from how people live their lives and where they are living, and we have to deal with them both. mobility and safety are two sides of the same coin and often we are forcing older people to choose between them, and that's not acceptable. thank you. >> thank you. next return to dr. bonnie dobbs. we asked you to help us understand aging from the driver's point of view and for that matter, the traveler's point of view. what are the special mobility considerations for an aging population? >> thank you, deborah. i want to talk about an inte greated -- an integrated approach. the approach has relevance to the older driver population in

terms of enhancement in safety and mobility. the framework is relevant to the topics i'll address today and that is what the abilities necessary for driving, the impact of medical conditions, and premature driving sensation. the framework that is on the overhead is the focus integrated approach that i used as my approach to research, and the three pillars is how do we identify older people, drivers in general who are at risk because of red call condition -- medical conditions, and once we've identified them, how do we assess them for driving competency, and final though who are determined not to be fe to drive, how do we support those individuals? i'm going to spend a brief moment on the three pillars.

in terms of identification, we know the changes associated with normal aging are unlikely to affect a person's ability to drive, but an illness plays a critical role, and that's important for the older driver population because of the age association of many illnesses such as dementia. because of the privilege of -- prevalence of medical conditions, it seems we need broad involvement of the medical community, law enforcement community, the individual, the families and friends, the community at large, and certainly licing authority -- licensing authorities. to assist the communities, we need evidence-based screening tools, and we also need a coordinated system, so we need the community, the medical community talking or working with the licensing community, we need individual families

coordinating or talking with the medical communities, so we need to develop a more coordinated system. as i mentioned a key component is it's one thing to screen or identify someone who may be at risk, but because of the importance of driving for mobility and independence, we want to ensure that when license is revoked, that the person really is at risk, and for that reason we need evidence-based standardized protocols, and those protocols are important because what they do is that they protect those who are safe to drive. in other words, ensuring that we're not revoking driving privileges from those who are still competent, but we're also protecting not only the individual, but other road users from those who are unsafe to drive. it's politically unpopular to talk about revocation of driving

privileges, but my view is if someone is no longer safe to drive, let's remove their license, but let's support them, and that allows me to talk about a third pillar in terms of support. when i think about support for the medically at risk driver or for any driver, it's in terms of psycho, social, and mobility. we know moving from the driver's seat to the passenger seat is one of the most difficult transitions that an individual will make. there's a psychological component, and we know from our research that we have to assist the individual and the family with that transition. we have developed evidence-based driving sensation support groups to help people make that transition and help their families. we also know that mobility is critical, and often if you look at mobility in the community, we tend to think of mobility in

terms of public transportation, bus, lrt's, and taxis. unfortunately, for the medically impaired driver or the frail older driver, those forms of transportation are simply unacceptable, so our focus has been on developing more responsive alternate models of transportation to keep people mobile and independent. thank you. >> thank you, dr. dobbs. >> one of the findings from the iihs report that was spoke about concerning the increase fatality risk for the very old driver. what can you tell us about crash involvement? >> thank you. it's a pleasure to be here today and speak about this. i'm going to give you my bottom line message up front, and then i'll explain, and i think that

the issue of crash involvement and fragility or frailty is trying to answer the question of responsibility. the main question around the issue of crash involvement or frailty is older drivers have higher crash rates when you take into consideration how much they drive. is this because they truly have more crashes or is this because they're more likely to be hurt or killed in a crash? then they end up in our data bases and they appear to be more of a problem than they are, or they appear they're a problem, and they're not. that's the issue we're trying to get at. the answer is critical because if you're causing say more than your share of crashes, maybe the safety measure that we need is to take you off the road. in short, you're responsible, but if the answer is that you're

just more likely to be hurt, the safety answer might be to improve vehicle safety features or roadway safety features. in short, you're physically frail, you're not responsible. research has investigated the factors affecting crash involvement, and i'll mention a few on the slide here. how much do you drive? so the low milage bias mentioned, drivers who drive a lot tend to have fewer crashes, and drivers who drive fewer miles tepid to have more -- tend to have more crashes. is this because they're self-restricted to speed on urban roads where there's potential conflicts and crashes or is it because of a reduced driving ability, so they drive the minimum they need to get by? crash involvement may not differentiate between a cause

sal action that you've sewn, you've caused a crash, and your responsible or crashes someone else caused, but you couldn't avoid it. factors affecting whether your physical frailty leads to injury or death in a crash include whether you were buckled up, how safe your vehicle was, and what kind of medical care you received. that's a mix of factors that you have control over, and factors that you have no control over as a driver. part of crash involvement is whether you're a risk to yourself or others on the road or both. researchers have quantified this risk in addition to quantifying the proportion of excess crash involvement that can be explained by fragility or frailty, and i keep using fragility and frailty at the same time and people typically use them interchangeably, it's

just interesting that the medical people say frailty and the traffic people say fragility, but from the literature, they normally are used interchangeably, so if general when you whsh in general when you look at the data, there's risk to typically older drivers who are in fragile health, but the risk is small when you compare it to say teen drivers or young adult drivers. the contribution of frailty to excess crash involvement is interesting to quantify, and in fact the proportion has been estimated at 60-95% of the exceases crash involvement and it's been estimated that half the crash involvement, it's hard at this point to put an exact number on it, but it is a

significant portion of the excess crash involvement among older drivers. when you take into consideration frailty and fragility, a low milage bias and maybe the types of roads that older drivers are driving on, it makes a difference in your consideration of how much of the excess crash involvement the responsibility of the drivers themselves or not. i think i'll stop there. thank you. >> thank you. the way we've structured the format for the panel this morning, we're going to now take an opportunity between dr. braver and myself to ask you questions. i've targeted these questions to individual panelists, but i want to take this opportunity to encourage you all to step in. there is met to be an interactive discussion at this point, and by way of

foreshadowing, we'll do the questions to the panelists until 10:20 giving us a half hour to set your time. thank you for the timing on your opening remarks. we really appreciate your respect of the clock. after we do the question and answer from the front of the table, we'll turn it over to the parties, and you will have 50 minutes or so to ask questions. we will help rotate that through the different tables, and again, just to reiterate, we've asked that one person from the table be a spokesperson for that table and that the questions you want to ask you write on the question cards to make the questions sus together when they come around. >> i'll turn to dr. mchart. the earlier studies warning us

we were facing an older driver problem and your june 2010 report tells us those drivers are not the drivers we anticipated. what might have changed from the earlier studies to today? >> well, i think that the challenge in this is we can think of lots of things that have changed, but our study for safer vehicles, for example, we know through research we have done and others have done, we are driving safer vehicles than we used to, but the key in the study is whatever explains our findings is a factor that has affected older drivers more than middle age drivers. you think about vehicles, for example, it's a challenge to look at that, but older drivers tepid to drive -- tend to drive older vehicles. we know they are buckled up, but it has to be the key to answering our questions that

comes from our studies are these factors have to be something that affected older drivers much more strongly than middle-aged drivers. you know, i talked about a couple of possibilities. certainly improved health and basically, you know, better physical conditioning of older drivers stands out. how we do the studies to see whether that's a part of an answer, we're not sure how to do that, and again, i think travel patterns are important. when we get the data from our latest travel survey, again, the preliminary findings show older drivers are driving a lot more overall and on average, but we need to look at beyond just the quantity of driving. we need to know if it's been suggested, for example, we know older drivers tend to have

certain kinds of crashes. they tend to crash at intersections and that is particularly high because they tend to drive in more urban areas. has this changed? are they driving on high speed roads that would have a lower crash risk and are safer if you crash? these are the things we want to try to take a look at, but again, it's very challenging to figure out how to do the studies to come up with the answers, so basically, we're not sure. >> thank you. you eluded to this in your opening comments, but i want a question answer to the question. people worry about older drivers posing a risk to other road users. how do older drivers compare with teenage drivers, those in their 20s and those middle-aged

30-60? >> older drivers do less harm to other road users compared to teens and people in their 20s. >> thank you. >> they are, you know, again, they are mostly a danger to themselves and to their passengers who also tend to be older. >> and then the last of my three questions to you is self-restriction such as limitations for time of day of travel or avoiding unknown routes appear to be common in older drivers. does this get rid of the excess risk of them being involved in crashes? in other words, does self-restriction solve the right they pose to themselves? >> well, i don't think we have the answer to that question. i think that it leads to a series of other questions. do the right people

self-restrict? you know, we're doing a study now that's following older drivers over a five year period asking them about their imperments, physical ability, and their travel patterns. we have a couple questions, but one is does it look like the right people are self-restricting? these are self-reported impairments, and then to see whether people report increased impairments over time, does that translate to increased self-restricted driving? so i don't, i don't think we know the answer to that question. another thing though i will point out and there may be other people talking about this later is there are state programs, and we looked at one in iowa that have -- that attempt to identify drivers of any age, but especially older

drivers who maybe should be restricting their driving. iowa administers a road test and can remove the license, renew the license without restrictions, but some drivers have restrictions. we interviewed drivers in these categories, and we found that the drivers who reported the greater impairments were the drivers that iowa was identifying for a road test and then getting restrictions. another thing that we found was that the older drivers complied with the restrictions, but they also in general affirmed or strengthened their restrictions the older drivers were also making. there is a lot of evidence that older drivers self-restrict, but whether it's the drivers who should always be

self-restricting, i think in the long run that would not totally eliminate the higher crash risk. >> thank you. so, anne, you've been showing a very dramatic increase among drivers who are 80 and older, and you've said these drivers are driving more than in the past, but i'm also wondering whether this age group might contain a lot of people who are holding on to their licenses because we use licenses for all sorts of purposes at the bank, airports, and so forth, and whether you might have a larger proportion of people in their 80s holding on to their license, but in fact, are not active drivers. is that one possible explanation for that very, very dramatic decline?

>> well, i keep pointing to the national household travel survey. there may be other surveys that aren't national that might answer some of those questions, but that's one of the questions i think we could answer when we have travel patterns, although i should point out that survey does not specifically ask if someone is a licensed driver. they ask if they drive, but that is a possibility. i would guess that would not fully explain the large declines, but, you know, again, without travel, without a good survey with detailed travel data, i don't think we can answer that. >> with a follow-up question, do you expect the national household travel survey when the latest version is available to provide adequate data on the amount of driving and type of driving performed by older drivers? >> well, i'm a researcher, so

i'll never say anything is adequate, but i think it would go a long way. for example, talk about the numbers of trips, the length of trips, to some extent the types of roadway circumstances for older drivers, so i think it, i think it would go a long way. >> it has information on the vehicle being driven for example, but it's a sample. it's a very large sample, but still whether for the very oldest drivers there will be adequate data to look at everything we want to look at by state, for example. in our study i could mention in our study in our models that included the 13 states we controlled, but we did find differences among the 13 states, and so one of the things we'd

like to look at more is, you know, whether by state, whether by urban rule, we'd like to look at the geographic component of what we see in crash trends. in a national sample, even a very big national sample quickly becomes problematic when you get down to a state level or, you know, a city level for example. i wanted to point one more thing out because a couple people have asked about the question of gender in our study. we didn't -- we did a couple studies, but in the second study we didn't specifically look at whether there were differences in men and women in the trends that we saw, so we did take a look at that. my co-author took a look at that, and we found the declines for women were somewhat stronger, but not significantly so, so whatever is explaning these differences is it's not

the answer, the answer doesn't seem to lie in differences among the genders. >> thank you very much. that's vy interesting. i'm now going to turn this over a deb bruce who's going to ask questions of dr. rossenbloom. >> hi. i can't do this without my glasses. what's that telling us? where people live dictate their travel patterns, and so the first general question is what do we know about where seniors live, and i'm curious what kinds of knowledge we have about the types of trips they take and where that trip information comes from. >> could i have slide number two? thank you. well, as i suggested, older people live in low density places. these numbers are from the

census, and one of the problems with the census is determining what's suburban. you can live 30 miles from downtown houston, downtown tampa, downtown phoenix, and be considered in the central city. these numbers actually underestimate the percentage of older people living at fairly low densityies, and i invite you to read this chart from left to right because the younger cohorts are very suburban, and they're moving through, and the cohorts behind them are even more suburban, and so what we're seeing as people age in place and they mostly do age in place, the largest percentage of older people live in very low density areas, and some are around a little less than a 4th living in rural areas, so what this means

is the car is really the only feasible mobility option in many of these areas, and we have to be looking at -- and people talk about well, what if older people move back to the central city, but that's not what they're doing. let me see chart -- could you put up four please? this is brookings institute data. the census does not every year figure out a one-year move rate. these are people who moved home, and these are in thousands, not a per percentage. wait a minute, that's not -- well, leave that one up. okay. you can see older people are substantially less likely to move than younger people. they are substantially less likely to move states. they're not moving very far. we think that a lot of movement at older ages is into care facilities.

the idea that older folks move from chicago or detroit to tucson or tampa or houston actually they're less likely to do that than they were 20 years ago, it's just that there's so many more older people, so those of us living in the sun belt states, we see older people coming in, but it's a smaller share of the population. most stay in the home where they were when they were still in the labor force, and what we need to talk about then is talking about mobility and access to ability and walk ability in those communities because as older people encounter difficults with driving or don't feel lie driving, there's few options in those communities. we're seeing people staying in low density communities. in fact, for every person in 2006 and 2007 which is my slide number four, but apparently not this anymore --

there it is. for every -- now remember not very many older people are moving, but for every older person who moves from suburb to central city which may not -- i need to remind you moving to much higher densities, there's two people moving the other direction, so the stories about older folks moving to the downtown of an area and you see those in the paper sometimes, those are what we call man-bites-dog stories. they are reported on because they are unusual. in fact, older people that do move are going the other way. let me show you something else. could i see number 8? no, it's a map of tucson. there we go. that's it. i'm sorry, this is a really terrible picture, and i'm not

sure the colors are going to show up. in the sort of to the left is tucson, arizona, the shaded areas are the city of tucson. the little map that you can't see on top is north of tucson. the map to the side is south of tucson, and those red dots which are hard to see are active adult retirement communities like web, and inform mall groupings of folks who moved out in trailers. if you can see the red dots, you'll see almost all of these are on the edge of the moe -- metro area. they moved in largely from the snow belt to the sun belt. they didn't -- when they moved out of detroit and chicago and cleveland and came to places like phoenix and tucson and tampa, where they

move is to the edge. most older people don't move their aging in place in low density areas, but those who do move particularly out to other states are moving out in the boonnies, and they are moving to communities, many of the communities that have no resources fo transportation resources whatsoever. no bus services, these are people who move when they have a car and don't have it in their mind they won't have a car in the future. >> thank you. i have one more question. i hope it's on a positive note. can you give a urban planning for aging communities? do you have experience with public policies or transit systems that you know of in other countries serving as examples for us? >> well, yeah. i agree with my fellow

panelists, public transportation is not generally the answer. traditional public services are not met for older people, but the commuters. they report frequently that they don't, they don't like the vehicles starting before they get to their seats and all the other inconveniences that the rest of us put up with when we use public transportation. there are some services that have been tried abroad particularly in scandnavia where there is smaller vehicles, and they like them being closer to the driver so if they have a problem, the driver can see they have not made it to their seat and they are rooted to the test destinations that seniors are

more interested in. they are successful in europe. they are more expensive, but they're not more expensive than doo-to-door services. can you show me slide 20, please? this is when it comes up, this is i just took some public systems at random, and you may know the americans with disability act requires public transit operators to provide curb-to-curb services or door-to-door services. i didn't cherry pick these. i was looking to get those sun belt and rust belt cities. the first column is the annual number of trips that are provided by the transit operator in that community in their ada service. if you look at the next coln, that's what percentage of the

total system ridership of all the services each provider provides, and what percentage are the ada trip, and you'll see it's very small. the highest is miami at 2.4%. looking at the next column you'll see what a one-way pair of transit trip costs. if you take mrs. jones to the doctor in boston, that costs you $33.21. if you take her to the doctor and bring her home, it's $66.42, and in fact the number for the largest 50 systems in the country is about $37 a one-way trip that explains the 4th column, the total percentage of system costs these ada systems require. miami is spending one out of every four transit dollars to

provide these ada services to a very percentage of the total ridership. it means these systems are not very likely to -- this is today, these systems are not very likely to expand. i wonder if i could see my slide 22, please? >> this is a study that i did a couple years ago for the institute on medicine who was mandated by congress to look at the extent of disability. now, these are not just older people. these are all people who reported to the census that they had a serious disability, and all i did was divide the number of trips by the number of people who might be eligible for those services. in chicago, for example, the average person of any age with a serious self-reported disability got less than one-fifth a trip a

year. now, inact, what happens is the overwhelming number of people eligible for the services never use them at all, and a small number uses them frequently, but the last column call calculates for each system their 2004 costs that was in the previous chart somewhere between $25-$45 a trip in 2008 data. i said, well, what if the transit operator provided for every person with a serious disability of any age, just provided them with one-round trip a year? you're talking about in atlanta, for example, $290 million a year just to provide people with various disabilities with one trip a month. so these options are not going to be -- these are not realistic options for the large number of older people who are not going to be

able to drive. i do think there's public transit options more geared to older people, but i think the answer really is to use the underunittized seats in cars and i'm a big advocate of volunteer driver programs which are much less expensive than these things and are a way to provide services in the low density areas where public transit and these kinds of services are not going to mix in. thank you. >> thank you very much. this is very interesting, and we really appreciate you covered the questions we were going to ask. i'm going to now move on to ask some questions of bonnie dobbs. i know that you have an expertise with the area of premature driving sensation, giving up driving even if the person drives well. i want to ask a couple questions about it. you know, what evidence is there